So many topics, so little time. This has been my mantra, particularly as of late. My god, the Republican Presidential Candidates alone can anchor me to the keyboard for hours! It's just so EASY to find fault with them - all of them. It's so easy, in fact, that I've avoided paying them too much attention on the blog. Hell, you don't need me to point that out to you anyway. All one need do is LISTEN to them to realize that we're not talking about a particularly brainy bunch. And the few (one?) who can at least think his way out of a paper bag, like Newt Gingrich, have serious ethical issues. I try to avoid the obvious and make a real effort to prevent the repetition of topics. However, some topics, by their very nature as well as for their continuing relevance, bare revisiting. So it has been with the Occupy Wall St. (OWS) movement. For this blog, this seems to be a topic that, like it's protagonist, just won't seem to go away. As I have previously written, I've had more discussions relative to this topic then for any other. And they have been passionate on both sides.
With this in mind, I once more visit the topic of OWS and its relevance to what is happening today. In today's (Sunday 11/27/11) NY Times, there is a front page feature article written by David Rocieniewski. The title is, A Family's Billions, Artfully Sheltered: Est'ee Lauder Heir's Tax Strategies Typify Advantages for the Wealthy. The title is very descriptive and, as all good headlines should, let's you know what to expect within the body of the article. It is a very detailed account of how the super wealthy, in this case, Ronald S. Lauder, heir to the Est'ee Lauder fortune, use their great wealth to create tax shelters, saving them millions of dollars. The article goes on to explain how, in this case, Lauder uses his great wealth to purchase super expensive works of art. He then creates a "foundation", under his control, for the care and exhibition of the art work and "donates" the work to the foundation he created. By donating the art to his private foundation, he qualifies for tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks from the Federal Government. Under the US Tax Code, it's all legal. It certainly is shrewd. But is it ethical? The article continues in great detail to describe how Mr. Lauder and other super wealthy philanthropists have the means to find ways to "channel" their money into self-serving charities and foundations. Yes, they have donated to charitable causes like hospitals and orphanages. However, it seems that these things are done not as pure altruism but, when maneuvered properly, provide huge tax breaks. In fact, it seems that the tax relief these donations bring to the super wealthy, exceed the benefits received by the charity! Some of these "loop holes" are so complicated that my head began to spin while reading the author's description of them! Only the super wealthy can afford the lawyers, economists, and tax experts to find and exploit the complicated tax laws to their advantage. And they most certainly do. And they do it in a way that although not illegal, can certainly appear unseemly. It is such a questionable practice that even other billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have joined most Democrats to call on Congress to eliminate these tax breaks.
When you strip away all of the so-called hippie nonsense that is too frequently associated with OWS, THIS is the core message. It's time that ALL people wake up and see what is as obvious as it is nefarious. The super wealthy will do everything in their means to preserve the status quo. Why? Because as things are, they have EVERYTHING and intend to keep it. If some of it trickles down through their charitable giving, then so be it. Just so long as they keep control of exactly what trickles and when! It begs the question: why do we continue to allow that to happen? This is the question that has been raised by OWS and people hate them for it. Why? I can see the Ronald S. Lauders of the world hating them. But you and I? I ask again, why? When shown in the clear light of day, the obscene tax breaks for the wealthy are exposed for the sham that they are. If you choose to ignore this I have another one of my famous, hackneyed phases for you: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Well, as for me, I'll steal a line from The Who to describe my feelings on the subject: won't get fooled again!
No comments:
Post a Comment